Case Information
*1 Case 1:25-cv-01270-JDB-jay Document 10 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID
22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION
BRANDON PELLY,
Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:25-cv-01270-JDB-jay BEAL LAW OFFICE,
Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND
DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
______________________________________________________________________________
The Plaintiff, Brandon Pelly, initiated this pro se action on November 24, 2025, against the Beal Law Office pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket Entry ("D.E.") 1.) His request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted the following day. (D.E. 6.) United States Magistrate Judge Jon A. York screened the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and, on November 25, 2025, issued a report and recommendation (the “R&R”) that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (D.E. 7.) In the R&R, Judge York advised the Plaintiff that any objections thereto must be filed within fourteen days after service of the report. Within that period, Pelly filed no objections to the R&R but, rather, filed an amended complaint against the same defendant. (D.E. 8.) Plaintiff filed another amended complaint on December 29, 2025. (D.E. 9.)
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs a district judge to “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); LR 72.1(g)(2). “Parties cannot *2 Case 1:25-cv-01270-JDB-jay Document 10 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID
23
raise at the district court stage new arguments or issues that were not presented before the magistrate judge’s . . . R&R.” Meddaugh v. Gateway Fin. Serv. , 601 F. Supp. 3d 210, 213 (E.D. Mich. 2022) (quoting Murr v. United States , 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Only specific written objections to the [m]agistrate [j]udge's proposed factual findings and legal conclusions are considered proper for the district court’s determination.” Tulis v. Orange , 686 F. Supp. 3d 701, 704-05 (M.D. Tenn. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff’d 2024 WL 4117021 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2024). With respect to matters to which there has been no specific objection, the district court need not engage in a review under a de novo or any other standard. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Where there is no objection, the report and recommendation should be adopted by the district court. Id. at 151; Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Shelby Cty. Sch. , 47 F. Supp. 3d 665, 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2014).
In light of the caselaw set forth above, this Court cannot consider any new issues raised in an amended pleading that were not before Judge York prior to his issuance of the R&R. Absent proper objections, the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation and DISMISSES this matter WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of January 2026.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2